Especially when the goal is to spread disinfo on DU?

Should disinfo be added as an alert category?

Yes, disinfo should be added as an alert category.

considering all the crap i expect will be flying around inside those intertubes

We’ve had more than one instance of people spreading disinformation that were made aware of it and outright said “I don’t care” with the generalized excuse of “They do it too, so why can’t I?” Ignoring or course, the fact that knowingly spreading garbage leaves us with all the credibility of, and in fact no better than the fucking Q morons and Foxnuze. It’s infantile.

I've deleted posts a few times after being schooled......

But I am stubborn and don't delete much of anything.
I stand by my comments.

DU as a community generally doesn't tolerate factual errors. We argue over opinions, but I don't think that many outright falsehoods get amplified here.

....which, although it isn't "outright falsehoods", does attempt to lead people in wrong directions.

Some actual trolls spreading FUD, some folks who just have strong opinions that I think are wrong. lol.

Inbox emails when I'm considered using right wing talking points even when I don't think they're any wing talking points. It's a rough crowd.

Because that's usually the first person to tell you that you're WRONG!

and call out BS sources

MAGAs don't care if their media are accurate, they just want a good story.

Only prohibitions against “kooky, extremist content”.

I've corrected people even when it may have been something against repukes.....I have also been schooled on some issues.

See what happens. Go ahead, I dare you.

Despite being challenged by other DUers.

Folks only read the OP, assume it is true, and rec the post without reading other comments.

If the OP won’t edit or delete their post, the misinformation stands.

“A lie travels around the world before the truth can get its pants on”

I have seen posts, often including click bait videos, but also stand alone assertions by an OP, with misinformation about current events, constitutional or legal processes, election returns, even false reports of deaths of famous people and politicians, all get numerous recs.

It’s all within the DU TOS.

It doesn't have to be within the the DU TOS.

Just one example chem trails. There have been many more.

Call it out when you see it.

Actually, no. We don't need additional fact checkers above the membership. We are perfectly capable of calling out misinformation.

Congratulations

Quite a few OPs based on debunked stories have remained unamended or undeleted after many of us have pointed their flaws out to the posters. Not infrequently, such OPs have had many recs.

The current alert options don't really fit that scenario, and juries seem reluctant to act unless the infringement is clear. Maybe there should be an option to refer OPs straight to MIRT or admin without having to figure out how to contact them outside the alert system.

Sometimes even double down

We are pretty good at calling out BS! ... "We don't need any stinking fact checkers"

I can't even count the number of times I've pointed out false information and been told it doesn't matter.

A concrete example is the images of children in foil blankets - taken during the Obama administration but attributed to Trump. For many here, that fact was irrelevant, because how Trump went about it was different (even though the damning images they were complaining about came about under Trump).

We also need more of us to read past the headline, even if it is just the content in the post. Better yet, follow the link in the post and check out the source. Even better, make sure the source is accurate Way too many long threads where people react to the title, without any recognition that the title has little to nothing to do with the content of the post (and in some instances is directly contradicted by the post).

Fact: The images of children in foil blankets were from the Obama administration - NOT the Trump administratoin
Response on DU: What are you talking about - Trump was worse.

Nowhere (now or at the time) did I suggest the policies were similar, although on immigration in general there is more similarity than I am comfortable across all of the last 3 administrations.

The fact I pointed out was when the photographs were taken (and, by extension, whether Trump was responsible for whatever happened to those specific children). Trump has zero to do with those specific images, because they were - in fact - taken during Obama's administration.

Once the facts are accurate, we can discuss the implications of those facts - but responding correction of a fact by diverting attention to something else - without acknowledging the factual accuracy, is a problem.

In case you really have forgotten the images, and are not just continuing the lie:

Also, there's a difference between facts and opinion. The parties involved agree on the fact that the photo is from the Obama administration. You have different opinions about aspects of the issue.

I think it's better to hash out the differences in the open rather than have moderators decide to delete whole threads, as happened in the past when DU had mods.

Our peer jury system is not perfect, but it works pretty well much of the time, and when it fails we can email EarlG. (Interestingly, when I'm called to a jury it's usually over childish name calling or something like that.)

Coupled with what happens in the vast majority of instances - the OP doesn't (sometimes actively refuses) to correct the misinformation - and people contribute to respond to the OP (and spread it) as if the fact checking never happened.

When it happens, and the person being fact-checked is receptive, it's a good thing. I've seen a few examples here recently. But most of the time, it doesn't - and what people take away is the incorrect information, rather than the correction. As appears to have happened here with the memory of the original images.

I didn't know what the solution is, but it is a significant problem. The only thing I can come up with is people making an individual commitment to fact check before they post, to make corrections when they realize they weren't factually accurate, and to read beyond the headline and fact check each other. Not likely to happen in this instant gratification and race to be the first to post world. But I'm not convinced it can be externally imposed in any effective manner.

Bottom line we have to care about facts, and to many of us put that second, third or even last when considering posting something.

There are lots of opinions expressed on DU that I disagree with. This attitude of "the facts don't matter, I'm telling a story" is deplorable. It's exactly what Vance said when he was called out about the Haitian lies.

This attitude went mainstream during shrub's administration. "Truthiness." I remember emailing a reporter (remember when we could do that?) and protesting the "untruths" and he responded "they're all untruths." Both siderism, facts don't matter, etc.

I don't see how moderators will really help. It's an accepted approach now, apparently.

I was solely correcting facts. That is my practice when I correct facts, because adding opinion diverts attention from the fact I am trying to correct.

The images were from the Obama administration. Is is not a differing opinion to provide different facts on a different subject (that Trump started the family separation policy), especially when it is announced as a fact check on my post. A fact check on my post would have pointed out that that the images were indeed from the Trump administration - and (preferably) provided a source to back that up.

Differing opinions would have required two opinions. And while I did express an opinion on general immigration policies in my response, the poster did not return to express their opinion on that matter.

I agree that it isn't a problem that will be solved by fact-checkers. It needs an attitude adjustment that I don't see happening any time soon - and it isn't just a problem on the right side of the political aisle.

follow the link in the post and check out the source. Even better, make sure the source is accurate..."

Cannot rep you enough for this.

Adding one more... read the comments to see if anyone has information that supports - or counters - the OP headline or post content.

That's where the fact-checking takes place! I greatly appreciate the members who have the knowledge/experience to support, counter, or contextualize the info in the OP. That's as important as the OP information, and why DU has been an invaluable resource.

I always welcome them.

I hate spreading misinformation.

I always try to let the person know if I told them something that I latter found out wasn't true.

I don't like being wrong so I welcome the truth.

When I am wrong it doesn't bother me to admit it.

ahead of what the anchors are reporting.

When asked : “Who watches the Watchman? “ Sam Vimes growled, “I do.” When asked: “Who watches you? “ he gave the same answer.

Followed closely by the DEATH series.

Altho as far as Death goes — I watch The Hogfather every Hogswatch Night.

Glad to meet another aficionado

Play Susan in The Hogfather?

Who is the writer you’re talking about? I need someone new to read 😉

There are 40 books in the Discworld series, which should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

They are wonderful! Mr YD recently re-read through the entire series. It was a third read for some of them. I am embarrassed to say that I have not yet read them all, but they all live on our bookshelves so I have opportunity!!!

Sir Terry has other books unrelated to Discworld, which Mr. YD has enjoyed.

Also, there are a few other films besides Hogfather.

https://www.famousfix.com/list/discworld-films-and-television-series

After that it is a tossup: The Witches, Death, Sam Vimes and Moist.

So many characters! So many hilarious plots!

… that was priceless (Spanish village, running of the bools) . And then, of all things, there was the long religious discourse woven through Carpe Jugulum as she fights the little Omnium priest to his knees and brings him to an epiphany.

As for a love story, to my mind the mature meeting of Lady Sybil and Sam Vimes in Guards!Guards! beats all.

I have read them all several times, and still get surprised and delighted.

Thank you for asking

For whatever reason, we’re not able to lie. They have no such compunction and the sad truth is, it’s working for them. Our honesty has put us at a political disadvantage.

any forum can become a cesspool of misinformation like X and Facebook. We should set a higher standard. And it’s just arrogant delusion to think “we can be our own fact checkers”. That just leads to endless back and forths between members. There needs to be a higher standard.

Not fear it like Trump, Musk and Zuckerberg.

You might want to volunteer for MIRT — also, take part in the Jury system. You’ll get a better idea of how things function, perhaps.

But it’s not a perfect system and can tend to be subjective. Formal fact checking just provides an objective standard and should not be feared.

The place operates 24/7, and I can’t imagine the kind of bottleneck it would create if there were insufficient people to check every post. The DU Admins are not operating on the scale of budget that Zuckerberg has — so, members would have to pay, I think.

Everything here is run by member-volunteers except the Admins, who founded the place on the day BushCheney were sworn in. They sank their own funds into DU and their own blood, sweat, and tears. They deserve whatever they earn, and believe me, they earn it. The amount of technical professionalism that goes on behind the scenes is phenomenal. The amount of thought that goes into the ever-evolving TOS gets worked out with input from the members.

People can join up and post at DU without paying any dues — I sure did, back in the early days when my finances were tight. Or they can pay a small affordable amount and all the ads will go away. Or they can donate a lot. But people are not excluded on the basis of inability to pay.

The honor system requires a lot of honor, if it’s to work. It’s DU’s versions of “norms. “

But am I “afraid” of someone checking my facts and opinions? Be my guest. I just won’t volunteer to pay you for it.

If they value the truth.

You're suggesting that we should have "formal fact checking" on DU, but have not provided any practical suggestions for how this could be done.

Who does the fact checking? Are they volunteers or paid professionals? If volunteers, what are their qualifications? If paid professionals, how are they getting paid? (If you think DU has the money to afford such a thing, I'm sorry to tell you we don't.) What are the standards? What kind of post can be alerted for a fact check? If every post on DU can be alerted as "misinformation," how long will it be before every post which is just a normal difference of opinion is sent up to the fact checkers? (I can tell you that the answer to the last question is, "instantly." )

There are obviously numerous issues involved with the idea of formal fact checking on a community-driven discussion forum. That aside, I can tell you why the Jury system can't be used as a fact checking system.

The Jury system doesn't just "tend to be subjective" -- it is entirely subjective, and that's not a bug, it's a feature. It is intentionally designed that way.

The reason the Jury system is subjective is because we're asking for people's opinions on things that are difficult to quantify. "Is this a personal attack? Is this bigoted? Is this a right-wing talking point?" Etc.

Because the Jury system is subjective, that means it isn't going to give the result that you think it should 100% of the time. This can often lead people to think that the system is "broken," but again, that's not a bug. Of course not everybody here is going to agree with everybody else 100% of the time.

The main priorities of the Jury system are twofold. First it needs to work quickly, so that alerts can be handled promptly, and second, it needs to be easy to use, so that as many people as possible will feel comfortable using it.

When people suggest that the Jury system should be objective, they're not really considering the ramifications of actually trying to do that.

For example, we could attempt to make the system more objective by adding lots of explanatory material to each rule, giving much more detail about what is and isn't acceptable. You can say that someone is lying, but you can't call them a liar. You can say that someone's opinion is foolish, but you can't say that they're a fool. You can't call someone a fucking idiot even if you truly believe that they are one. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Unfortunately, that road leads to madness. It is not possible to "drill down" into every single possible variant of what a personal attack might look like. Instead, adding lots of additional explanatory information would do two things:

1) It would make fewer people want to serve on Juries, if they know they have to read tons of extra material every time they're asked to serve, just to make sure they're doing it "right." This would reduce the pool of jurors, slow down the process of handling alerts, and lead to results which would likely be less in line with what the community at large thinks.

2) Many people who participate on discussion forums want to know where the "line" is -- what can they get away with saying, and what they can't. Adding additional explanatory information allows bad actors to parse all the clauses to figure out exactly how they can be as mean as possible to other people without technically violating the rules.

Both of those problems are inherent in traditional moderating systems that use extensive rules and a small pool of moderators.

So instead we provide some guidance, but mostly we just ask people to go with their gut. Is this a personal attack, in your opinion? That provides a subjective outcome, every single time. But it also keeps things simple and allows everyone in the community to participate by serving on Juries.

The Jury system does not provide a bright line where "you can say this" falls on one side and "you can't say that" falls on the other. Instead it creates an aggregate, a broad "fuzzy line." Under this system, the more extreme your post is in relation to the rest of the community, the more likely you are to be dinged.

Anyway, the reason I write all of the above here, is to show that the Jury system cannot be used as a fact-checking system, because it is not built to handle objectivity.

Imagine getting called to serve on an alert which has been sent for "misinformation." If you want to serve on this Jury, you'll need to start searching the Internet for the truth of the matter. You might have to spend some time doing this. Since we're asking you to fact check, we should probably also provide you with a list of sources which are acceptable -- even though those sources might not always be accurate 100% of the time. If you want to serve on this Jury, we're asking you to leave DU and spend a good chunk of time performing a fact check which may or may not produce accurate information, on a post which you may or may not care about.

And we would need seven people to do that, every single time a post is alerted for "misinformation" -- which would be even more of a problem since misinformation alerts would immediately start flying on posts which are currently treated as a simple difference of opinion. Add in the fact that there's no guarantee that the Jurors would be objective anyway (what do you think would happen if someone sent a misinformation alert on a post which says, "Israel is committing genocide," for example?) and I don't see how it could possibly work.

I think all DUers should take care to make sure that information they bring to the site is factually correct, and I don't think people should be posting "fake news" which is presented as real news, and it does bother me when people credulously post information which can be objectively proven false. But the thing is, I think most DUers feel the same way I do. That's why the current system -- which is simply to have other people show up and post the truth of the matter -- works pretty well on DU, most of the time. Like all systems, it's not perfect. But I hope I've shown in some detail why trying to handle fact checking through the Jury system will not work at all.

and have never been asked how to provide a “practical explanation” on how to do it. The OP asked for an opinion and I gave mine.

Your comments are about what you would like to see. I mean in theory, formal fact checking is a great idea. In practice -- particularly as the person tasked with trying to carry it out -- I have no idea how it could work on a site like DU.

Facebook, X, and other social media sites have literally billions of dollars that they can choose to throw at whatever they want, and they've made the deliberate choice to not have professional fact checking. I wouldn't make that decision if I were them, but unfortunately I don't have their resources.

A number of folks on DU think that solving this is a simple as having a new rule which says "Don't post misinformation," and I wanted to point out that it's quite a bit more complicated than that.

And no one is judging you if it’s not possible to do.

While what you said is true of social media, DU is another type of community altogether. The posts aren't pumped by algorithms and people know one another's personas pretty well. And the people here are SMART and SKEPTICAL. Misinformation doesn't sit for more than a minute or two before folks here are on it like chickens on a June bug. Stick around a few more years. You'll see the realtime factchecking in action.

no one knows what the future might hold. Those who value the truth shouldn’t fear formal fact checking.

do or do not.

so far, its "do not"

..it's usually like "Alabama employment is 6.8 percentage and not 8.3 percent."
Usually, not that big a deal. (and the reader might be looking at a different year)

I appreciate it. Cuffed about in a positive professional manner.

This thread brings a memory of my most famous HS teacher. Thank You All for the memory. Speech and Debate. 55 years ago. She was about 5 foot 5. Her voice could be a sonic boom. She was Superwoman.

IF YOU ASSERT YOU MUST PROVE. What is wrong or bad about that? We check each other when warranted. Good for us and thank you all for keeping an eye on me.

We ARE!!!

:

😏

1) the Alert system
2) MIRT
3) the Admins
4) other DU members

Seems to work pretty well. I don't see a ton of garbage on DU like the popular social media. A lot of it goes by too quickly, but I'm also getting slower.

https://russblib.blogspot.com/

There are people here actively posting disinfo and they ignore any responses pointing it out. There is no alert category for disinfo on DU. This degrades DU’s reliability as an effective communication tool. Disinfo has gotten worse on DU in my opinion, which is why this is a problem now.

I’m not talking about shades of grey political opinions. I’m talking about disprovable assertions.

Not only that but so many other DUers buy into the falsehoods the OPs posted, despite all of the debunking already posted.

It is maddening, and makes the board look bad.

The disinfo is usually politically motivated from the left. Occasionally it’s just internet noise debunked on Snopes.

The Rule:

Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.

Creates panic and doom
OR
Creates overwhelming happiness. (Trump is going bye-bye)

Maybe it's because we're already like minded.

I was flamed for doing that.

Is a stronger sense of cynicism.

I don't need fact-checkers because I don't assume everything written on the internet is a fact. I don't treat it as a fact until enough corroborating evidence has been provided to make it reasonably factual.

If everyone approached the internet with similar levels of doubt, the entire question would be moot.

It is shocking to me how much faith people put in information just because they read it. It is one of the reasons I despise social media is because it is so easy to manipulate people. Much of twitter is just opinion masquerading as fact. Most political content today is just a reference to a story with an outrage inducing interpretation. Since the vast majority of people never dig deeper, the 80 character outrage summary carries the message even if it disagrees entirely with the underlying content.

And yes, we are guilty of it too, albeit it a much lesser degree.

And here's an explanation and context free link to a monetized YouTube account with a thumbnail with a super clickbaity headline graphic, with LARGE YELLOW WRITING and a GIANT ARROW to proclaim why. And I don't care what you say about it because my hit-n-run posting nature will never see your replies.

Just clicks and recs, baby!

I have noticed that when someone says something that is false, some DUer will call them on it almost immediately. We have informed members that check facts very closely.

I have been shot down and called a republican for pointing out facts.

Some of the sources are questionable.

The GOP is good at spreading fake news.

There are some left leaning sites which also spread fake news/propaganda. However, for some reason when we spread it, it doesn't have the "same affect" as when the GOP shares fake news or when we share it amongst ourselves it just "doesn't work". I think fake news/propaganda is meant to be used as a campaigning tool.

I can think of one big one that I won't even mention because I get shut down. It's propaganda that was put out against Trump and if it helps us win an election, it's great. But it's really annoying when it's treated "as fact" here.

Then I've gotten, "They spread fake about us, we can spread fake about them".

Maybe there should just be an "unproven news" group and that group can feel free to spread the info on SM. That way it doesn't get argued about here.

There is a difference between the two sites.

And so called facts change often.

Years and years ago I made a comment about the “Coffee lady” and boy did I get an education. I couldn’t possibly find the thread but it wasn’t just “You are wrong” it was detailed in depth discussion of what happened and engineering explanations of why it happened. This was a few years before the excellent documentary “Hot Coffee” that did the same.

Stella Liebeck was the plaintiff.